I agree with your assessment of what he said, but I disagree that it doesn't imply anything else or that it was "all" he said. Maybe he was just rambling or trying to sound vague, but there are a lot of extra words there that don't really make sense - I can't tell if he implied anything else.
~RBBM~
I agree with you about Kolar perhaps needing to be intentionally vague (lawsuit avoidance). I still am unsure how he views JR in the context of the crime. He certainly spent some time in FF reviewing JRs actions. While considering his Reddit comments, Ive been thinking about a question which has been raised frequently: What did JR know and when did he know it.
Whoever thinks that JR only figured out what happened that morning, not even participating in the staging, is actually in good company. ST and Kolar arent sure that he was involved until after the police arrived. Kolar references JRs statement to his future son in law that he found JB at 11 am, and because it was a spontaneous utterance, the statement was considered true.
Of course, there are things like the fibers from the new Israeli shirt found in the crotch of JBs new Bloomies, a statement from an attorney which has been strongly denied by IDI.
But aside from fibers, there is an idea in criminal profiling that behavior is more telling than words. What is thought-provoking in terms of JR is that he is always able to come up with an explanation, which might seem very believable, even if he has to deny what he originally said. Heres what Gregg McCrary, FBI profiler, said about criminals and their verbal statements,
"I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it."
Former FBI profiler, Douglas, who interviewed JR with PR by his side, alleged
if JR was lying, he was one of the best. He came away believing JR was an 'innocent' in the crime. And perhaps he was.
But if one thinks the 'Intruder' is a mirage, as I do, its also useful to look at this from a behavioral standpoint.
From a normal family standpoint, it stretches credibility that PR would fail to awaken JR if she found that BR had mortally wounded their daughter. It also is hardly credible that, if reviewing the ransom note for the first time, JR wouldnt wake up his son and ask what BR may have heard (or done).
And then that same morning JR hustles BR out of the home at about 8 am, telling police who wished to question BR, that he was asleep the whole time and hadnt heard anything. JR claimed to have let him sleep, never questioning him if he heard anything. Well, based on the 911 call, with his and BRs voices heard, we know this was not true. He even admits this in an interview with a tabloid. Moreover, others have heard the anger in JRs voice towards BR and a natural question one would ask is whether that anger was because BR was interrupting a conversation, or because of what he knew BR had done.
What about JRs attorneys, what did they think about JRs guilt or innocence in the crime? In August 1997, JRs attorney went through the full autopsy report with JR . The attorney went through every detail of the coroners findings with JR, who became despondent and broke down.
Attorney M, who was likely to have had his doubts about Rs innocence, watched his client closely. That was when the attorney discovered that JR did not even know how JonBenét had died. PMPT
But JR would certainly have known details in January,
By now (January 97), the press had reported that JonBenéts skull had been fractured, that shed been garroted, that the ransom amount was an odd figure, and that the paper used for the note had come from inside the house. PMPT
JR also addressed JonBenéts sexual injuries in May 1997 at the Rs own press conference: There have also been innuendoes that she had been or was sexually molested. I can tell you that those were the most hurtful innuendoes to us as a family.
My problem is what triggers JRs behavior in the attorneys office, breaking down as though he hadnt even known how JonBenét had been killed? At least that was his attorneys interpretation.
A few reasonable questions might be: Was JR equal to PR in acting ability, maybe an even better actor than PR? And would some of his actions be behavioral indices someone like Gregg McCrary would look at really closely for determining when he knew something about the crime? If he were not involved in her injuries, does his behavior reinforce lack of knowledge before the morning of the police arrival?
Just some thoughts and, as past poster Gramcracker used to say, YMMV.
